Structured programming says you should only ever have one return statement per function. This is to limit the complexity. Many people such as Martin Fowler argue that it is simpler to write functions with multiple return statements. He presents this argument in the classic refactoring book he wrote. This works well if you follow his other advice and write small functions. I agree with this point of view and only strict structured programming purists adhere to single return statements per function.

在其他条件相同的情况下，单一出口点可以显著提高代码的可读性。 但有一个问题:流行的结构

resulttype res;
if if if...
return res;

是假的，“res=”不比“return”好多少。它只有一个return语句，但函数实际结束的地方有多个点。

如果你的函数有多个返回值(或“res=”s)，最好将它分解成几个较小的函数，每个函数都有一个退出点。

为了实现良好的标准和行业最佳实践，我们必须在所有函数中建立正确的返回语句数量。显然，人们一致反对使用一个return语句。所以我建议把它设为2。

如果每个人现在都能检查一下他们的代码，找到任何只有一个出口点的函数，并添加另一个出口点，我将不胜感激。在哪里不重要。

这一变化的结果无疑将是更少的bug，更大的可读性和难以想象的财富从天而降。

Structured programming says you should only ever have one return statement per function. This is to limit the complexity. Many people such as Martin Fowler argue that it is simpler to write functions with multiple return statements. He presents this argument in the classic refactoring book he wrote. This works well if you follow his other advice and write small functions. I agree with this point of view and only strict structured programming purists adhere to single return statements per function.

有时出于性能考虑，这是必要的(我不想获取不同的缓存线，就像继续一样;有时)。

如果你不使用RAII分配资源(内存、文件描述符、锁等)，那么多次返回很容易出错，而且肯定是重复的，因为释放需要手动执行多次，你必须仔细跟踪。

在这个例子中:

function()
{
    HRESULT error = S_OK;

    if(SUCCEEDED(Operation1()))
    {
        if(SUCCEEDED(Operation2()))
        {
            if(SUCCEEDED(Operation3()))
            {
                if(SUCCEEDED(Operation4()))
                {
                }
                else
                {
                    error = OPERATION4FAILED;
                }
            }
            else
            {
                error = OPERATION3FAILED;
            }
        }
        else
        {
            error = OPERATION2FAILED;
        }
    }
    else
    {
        error = OPERATION1FAILED;
    }

    return error;
}

我会把它写成:

function() {
    HRESULT error = OPERATION1FAILED;//assume failure
    if(SUCCEEDED(Operation1())) {

        error = OPERATION2FAILED;//assume failure
        if(SUCCEEDED(Operation3())) {

            error = OPERATION3FAILED;//assume failure
            if(SUCCEEDED(Operation3())) {

                error = OPERATION4FAILED; //assume failure
                if(SUCCEEDED(Operation4())) {

                    error = S_OK;
                }
            }
        }
    }
    return error;
}

这当然看起来更好。

这在手动资源释放的情况下尤其有用，因为在哪里和哪些释放是必要的是相当直接的。如下例所示:

function() {
    HRESULT error = OPERATION1FAILED;//assume failure
    if(SUCCEEDED(Operation1())) {

        //allocate resource for op2;
        char* const p2 = new char[1024];
        error = OPERATION2FAILED;//assume failure
        if(SUCCEEDED(Operation2(p2))) {

            //allocate resource for op3;
            char* const p3 = new char[1024];
            error = OPERATION3FAILED;//assume failure
            if(SUCCEEDED(Operation3(p3))) {

                error = OPERATION4FAILED; //assume failure
                if(SUCCEEDED(Operation4(p2,p3))) {

                    error = S_OK;
                }
            }
            //free resource for op3;
            delete [] p3;
        }
        //free resource for op2;
        delete [] p2;
    }
    return error;
}

如果在没有RAII(忘记异常问题!)的情况下使用多个出口编写这段代码，则必须多次写入删除。如果你用}else{then 这有点难看。

但是RAII使得多个出口资源问题变得毫无意义。

使用单个出口点确实在调试中提供了优势，因为它允许您在函数的末尾设置单个断点，以查看实际将返回的值。